The post-1949 China does not differ from slave states from the past thousands years, slave states such as Stalin’s Russia.
I understand the post-1949 China because I lived in Stalin’s Russia. But foreigners like Walter Duranty, who was The New York Times correspondent in Moscow in the 1920s and 1930s, accepted what they took for reality in their own free country.
For example, they saw (and seeing was believing for them) that Stalin was elected in Russia in a smoother way than was any statesman in the best of democracies.
If voters did not show up early enough at a polling station, members of the electoral commission would come (they had the addresses of all their voters, since every Soviet inhabitant of 16 or older had to be registered with the local police station to receive the right to reside) and would, very politely, remind them that they were expected at the polling station.
Should a voter have said that he or she would not come to vote, he or she would risk more than any criminal in a democracy.
I was 18 years old when Stalin was elected, and it was the first election I voted in.
I went to the polling station to vote early in the day. I picked not one, but — unobtrusively — two ballot papers. Then, with an innocent smile, I asked the young girl in charge whether it would be all right to go into the polling booth.
“Of course!” she beamed. Why wouldn’t a young man like myself have some privacy to write on his ballot how great Stalin was, and that was why he was voting for him?
Inside the polling booth, my hands in gloves, I wrote on one ballot paper that Stalin was the world’s greatest criminal, etc., put the clean ballot paper over this real ballot, left the booth, and dropped (both ballots) into the ballot collection box.
Near midnight, after the polling stations had been closed and the ballots counted and my real ballot read with horror, the police raided every building in our electoral district, checking the “internal passports,” which every Soviet citizen was obliged to have after the age of 16.
Did the police hope to identify by his or her internal passport the criminal who had written what I had written and what no policeman would dare read out loud even in top official secrecy?
Did they believe that a voter who had voted against Stalin would not have his passport in order?
But when Stalin became unable (on account of his death!) to do any harm to any subject, Khrushchev, his closest associate, wrote a “secret” letter, which was not published but was read to the personnel of all enterprises.
Any part of this letter would have been sufficient, when Stalin was alive, to have its author tortured to death.
Since I did not belong to any Soviet bureaucracy and therefore did not hear the letter being read, I asked our neighbor (a singer on the Soviet national radio station) what was said in his letter.
Cheerfully, our neighbor explained that “Stalin was just like Hitler, only worse.”
If Stalin believed that at least a tiny particle of love which his slaves expressed for him was true, the time after his death proved even that to have been an illusion.
The owners of China can have no such illusion after the world-known Tiananmen Square movement for a representative government instead of a slave state.
About 100 smaller uprisings every year are known only locally. And quite well known is the fact that dozens of millions of party members withdrew from the Communist Party of China. The only way for the owners of China to preserve their ownership is to make it global, as a result of which external aid to local movements against the slave state will be impossible, as will be the inspiration of local slaves in China by the very existence of free countries outside.
My Google search “China’s future world empire” produced about 1,440,000 results. Possibly, most Americans have never seen a single one of these results.
The first listed a “two-day symposium held at the University of Chicago.” Who would care to read it? But Google collects whatever has appeared in the media on the subject searched by a Google user in the free countries. What about China?
Few Americans knew that in 2006 Google agreed to comply with Chinese totalitarian rulers’ demand that Google censor search-results for China, and it launched a new version of its search engine Web site in China. The site censors material about Tibet, human rights, and the Tiananmen Square massacre, which followed an attempt of the unarmed Chinese (in 1989) to propose a peaceful transition from state slavery to political freedom as in the United States, Britain, and other free countries.
It is noteworthy that China’s most vulnerable spot proved, for the owners of China, to be the people’s search for a peaceful way to move from state slavery to political freedom.
Given this attitude of the owners of China, the only way for them to preserve their lives in inevitable revolts (about 100 of them occur every year, but they are successfully concealed) is to make the world their slave state.
To establish its world empire, China must have new superweapons. Google notes 8,950,000 results for China’s new superweapons.
Was Google obliged to conceal this particular figure from the Chinese users? Not at all! The more Chinese believe in China’s global victory, the better! They will drop their hopes for political freedom in China!
In other words, an American may conclude that a world war for China’s global empire is already full blast on. But possibly most Americans are interested in Chinese toys for adults and children, and not in Chinese weapons able to “kill” an American military ship in mid-ocean.
Possibly most Americans do not notice China’s new superweapons. And as for CNN or The New York Times, possibly there will never be a China-U.S. war even when CNN and The New York Times will be used to settle the Chinese (the superior race!) in their buildings, as Gen. Chin predicted years ago.
A vast population of China (1,33 billion) can produce four times as many creators and military users of new superweapons as can the United States.
No American academic expert I have read mentions this advantage of China. But this does not mean that the owners of China will not use it.
The American refusal to pay attention to China’s global war is not to China’s disadvantage. Rather it is to the military disadvantage of the United States, which was protected (against, for example, Hitler’s invasion) by the two oceans and Canada.
Well, now it is not 1941, but 2010 — a Happy New Year!
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.